SeaWolf-AI commited on
Commit
bb1bd37
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): bfdd352

honesty: screening-indicator framing + ED/4x4 finite-size caveat

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +16 -5
README.md CHANGED
@@ -139,11 +139,22 @@ A_d(δ) table is in `scoring_meta.json`; the pipeline is in `pipeline/`.
139
  - **Provisional** — your submitted estimate, on the same scale; appears instantly.
140
  - **Verified** — the organizers' precise solver at the material's filling sets the official rank.
141
 
142
- **Honest interpretation:** a higher index means a stronger d-wave pairing *tendency* — a better
143
- candidate to investigate — **not** a guaranteed critical temperature (Tc) or a confirmed
144
- superconductor. The effective model is an explicit **single-band approximation** (N(E_F) and δ from
145
- DFT, t from the active-band width, U/t = 8 as a control). You compete by computing a better,
146
- material-specific A_d with your own many-body method.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
147
 
148
  ## Tracks & prizes (total US $3,000)
149
 
 
139
  - **Provisional** — your submitted estimate, on the same scale; appears instantly.
140
  - **Verified** — the organizers' precise solver at the material's filling sets the official rank.
141
 
142
+ **Honest interpretation:** the index is a **d-wave pair-correlation screening indicator**, not a
143
+ guaranteed critical temperature (Tc) or a confirmed superconductor. Two caveats we state plainly:
144
+
145
+ - **Not proven interaction-driven pairing.** A_d comes from a d-wave-biased variational (NQS/AGP)
146
+ wavefunction, so it measures the pair correlation that a paired trial state sustains — not an
147
+ unbiased proof that the Hubbard model itself wants d-wave. Independent exact-diagonalization (ED)
148
+ cross-checks (contributed by participants) and our own control runs (d-wave vs Fermi-sea on a
149
+ common 4×4 cluster) show the enhancement over the non-interacting case is **not monotonic and is
150
+ dominated by finite-size effects** — consistent with the modern result that the pure 2D Hubbard
151
+ model shows no robust d-wave superconductivity at U/t = 8 (Qin et al., *Science* 2020). Treat the
152
+ A_d(δ) "dome" as partly a finite-size/ansatz feature.
153
+ - **Single-band approximation** (N(E_F) and δ from DFT, t from the active-band width, U/t = 8 as a
154
+ control).
155
+
156
+ Use the index to **rank and prioritize candidates**, not to claim superconductivity. You compete by
157
+ computing a better, material-specific pairing estimate with your own many-body method.
158
 
159
  ## Tracks & prizes (total US $3,000)
160